An Essay Concerning Some Problems with the Constitutional-Doubt Canon

The constitutional-doubt canon instructs that statutes should be interpreted in a way that avoids placing their constitutionality in doubt. This canon is often said to rest on the presumption that Congress does not intend to exceed its constitutional authority. That presumption, however, is inconsistent with the notion that government actors tend to exceed their lawful authority—a notion that motivates our constitutional structure, and in particular the series of checks and balances that the Constitution creates. This tension between the constitutional-doubt canon and the Constitution’s structure would be acceptable if the canon accurately reflected the manner in which the public understands legislative enactments. But it doesn’t. Thus, the only possible justification for the constitutional-doubt canon is stare decisis.

Washington and Lee Law Review

About W&L Law

Our Law School is a leader in the world of legal education. Its mission is to provide an extraordinary educational program emphasizing critical thought, the power of the written word, continual reflection on ethical duty, and the meaning of law and justice in a swiftly changing world. By assembling a collegial, academically exceptional, and diverse student body in small classes with closely involved faculty, the Law School aims to produce leaders whose unique combination of intellectual ability, academic and practical training, and professionalism is recognizably "Washington and Lee." Equally important, the Law School seeks to sustain a first‐rank faculty from a spectrum of background and experience, whose scholarship enriches the public discourse of American and global society.